Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Belmar council adopts affordable‑housing zoning and tax‑exemption ordinance, endorses housing element and opposes offshore leasing
Summary
The Belmar Borough Council adopted an ordinance creating an affordable‑housing zoning district (ordinance 2025-12), approved a long‑term tax exemption and financial agreement (ordinance 2025-13), endorsed the borough’s fourth‑round housing element and passed a resolution opposing new offshore oil and gas leasing off New Jersey’s coast.
The Belmar Borough Council moved forward on multiple housing and land‑use actions at its meeting. The council adopted ordinance 2025-12, which amends Chapter 40 to create an affordable‑housing zoning district for a project at 16 10th Street, and adopted ordinance 2025-13 authorizing a long‑term tax exemption and execution of a financial agreement.
The council also unanimously introduced and adopted resolution 2025-1-32 endorsing the borough’s fourth‑round housing element and fair‑share plan and adopted resolution 2025-1-34 opposing the inclusion of new offshore oil and gas leasing off the coast of New Jersey. Council members also approved resolution 2025-1-33 to issue a club license to the Belmar Fishing Club.
Redevelopment counsel Fran McManaman said the zoning change for the 16 10th Street project is consistent with the concept plan attached to a court‑approved settlement agreement and that a developer’s agreement will further specify project details. McManaman and the borough attorney said the ordinance does not authorize rooftop pools or other amenities not included in the concept plan.
Resident Eugene Kramer raised concerns during the public hearing about spot zoning and the ordinance’s use of the term "residential amenity," arguing the term is undefined in the borough code and asking whether rooftop-occupied space could effectively add an extra story. Borough counsel responded that the term will be read according to its ordinary meaning and that the specific project is subject to a forthcoming developer’s agreement and prior public presentations.
Votes recorded in the meeting transcript show affirmative responses from council members when motions were called. The meeting did not include financial details of the tax‑exemption agreement in the public record beyond the ordinance title; the council indicated the developer’s agreement will be presented to council in a future session.
